New York Obesity Tax

Layziebones

Layziebones

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
ALBANY, New York (CNN)
Click to expand...
-- Like many New Yorkers, I remember a time when nearly everyone smoked. In 1950, Collier's reported that more than three-quarters of adult men smoked. This epidemic had a devastating and long-lasting impact on public health.
Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.
What smoking was to my parents' generation, obesity is to my children's generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.
That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.
For example, a study by Harvard researchers found that each additional 12-ounce soft drink consumed per day increases the risk of a child becoming obese by 60 percent. For adults, the association is similar.
If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent.
Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state.
The surgeon general estimates that obesity was associated with 112,000 deaths in the United States every year. Here in New York state, we spend almost $6.1 billion on health care related to adult obesity -- the second-highest level of spending in the nation.
Last year, legitimate concerns about links between consumption of fast food and the prevalence of heart disease prompted New York City to ban the use of trans fats in restaurant food.
No one can deny the urgency of reducing the rate of obesity, including childhood obesity. Obesity causes serious health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. It puts children at much greater risk for life-threatening conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
We must never stigmatize children who are overweight or obese. Yet, for the sake of our children's health, we have an obligation to address this crisis. I believe we can ultimately curb the obesity epidemic the same way we curbed smoking: through smart public policy.
In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes.
In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings.
These taxes may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier.
Just as the cigarette tax has helped reduce the number of smokers and smoking-related deaths, a tax on highly caloric, non-nutritional beverages can help reduce the prevalence of obesity.
To address the obesity crisis, we need more than just a surcharge on soda. We need to take junk food out of our schools. We need to encourage our children to exercise more. And we need to increase the availability of healthy food in underserved communities.
But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults.
I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/18/paterson.obesity/index.html
 
I really hope they don't do this in my state. Where I work, people freak out over the $0.06 sales tax on a soda (they think because it is a drink there is no tax), if we had to add another $0.18, I'm sure there would be a riot.
 
I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly.
New York and their crazy laws.

And seriously, when the hell did politicians become our doctors?
 
[quote name='Rusty Ghia']I don't drink soda (only water for me,) so I don't object. :booty:[/quote]
Same here. They can tax soda as much as they want, I don't care.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Way to circumvent the law: high fructose corn syrup. If they don't specify that shit in the law, it's not really a "sugary" drink. ;)[/QUOTE]
If I'm following your post right... then I agree. There are some sugary drinks like Blue Sky soda that don't have corn syrup but are arguably 'sugary drinks'.

Mixed on this. I hate fatties, but I don't want the guvment steppin' in when I wanna sit back and enjoy a nice bottle of root beer.

I'm gonna start my own distillery/brewery. If you guys find my Sugar Speakeasy, knock three times. The secret word to get in is "prohibition".
 
I love how Americans only put up a real fight against socialist policies when they have a progressive flavor. Socialist policies of a plutocratic or theocratic nature sail right through legislatures

Take for example the recent financial fatcat bailouts, the inept detroit auto industry bailouts, the new legislation empowering pharmacists to dole out medication according to their religious beliefs rather then real science.

I say we've already ceded power to the gov't, might as well get the good with the bad.
 
Somehow I don't think this is the use that our forefathers envisioned for the government and Constitution when they created them.

This doesn't bother me personally, as I don't drink soft drinks or sugary juices more than 2-3 times a month. Still though, I think this is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='YoshiFan1']I really hope they don't do this in my state. Where I work, people freak out over the $0.06 sales tax on a soda (they think because it is a drink there is no tax), if we had to add another $0.18, I'm sure there would be a riot.[/quote]

At least then, if they rioted, they'd get some exercise XD
 
But here's the flip side, if you want government subsidized healthcare, and are taking poor care of your body, why should other people be paying for your benefits if you decide to put garbage drinks and food in your body?

Consumers don't see the longterm costs of drinking cokes and eating burgers, but they are there.
 
i dont know if this is 100% the right way to approach the subject, but something does have to be done. as a whole the percentage of obese people in the US raises daily....so even though not everyone will agree, i dont think anyone can really be too upset by this because it is about our health.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.[/quote]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with "for people's own good." NY is deep in debt and this is just a way to climb out. It has nothing to do with people's health.
 
I have grown up in NY and am about to go to college. Every year, there are less reasons that I want to stay in this state after I graduate. :cry:
 
true, perhaps...but if you look at what some of the higher end ppl that work for the city make and what they approve for the MTA alone it's borderline ridiculous.

So what's next? driving down to VA to buy cola and truck it up tp NYC to make a profit like cigarettes? Damn it, now they know where I get all my videogame money.:whistle2:#

If you live and work in this city and see first hand what the city workers do on a daily basis your take on the matter might be different.

There's something wrong when they cut millions of dollars in education to approve the funding of a luxury class trailer with 3 - 50 + inch plasma TVs, AC, and the works...it's like the REAL WORLD MTV style for...MTA workers to view events like parades from and monitor activity like that. Was that really necessary? C'mon chris...c'mon...c'mon chris. C'mon. (chris rock show)

Two words.

Animal Farm.
 
[quote name='vherub']But here's the flip side, if you want government subsidized healthcare, and are taking poor care of your body, why should other people be paying for your benefits if you decide to put garbage drinks and food in your body?

Consumers don't see the longterm costs of drinking cokes and eating burgers, but they are there.[/quote]

+1 for this.

What would you rather: A soda gets taxed X cents more. Or your tax dollars get thrown away on healthcare for people who took crap care of their bodies.
 
I have no problem with it. A better way to do it is have no sales tax on most food, and but a tax on soda, candy bars, chips etc.

But we need something to help encourage people to eat better, and money is one way to do it. For instance, I don't drink much soda and when I do it's diet, but when the vending machine at work went from $1.00 for a 20oz bottle to $1.25 last year I drank a lot less.

I get the government is forcing ideals on people complaints, but I really don't care. Having such a high obesity rate hurts all our wallets at the end of the day through higher insurance premiums, health care costs etc. And you have the annoyances of things like getting stuck next to an obese person on the plane who didn't pay for two seats etc.

So in my view a tax like this is a good thing, and needs to be couples with renewed focus on exercise and eating right in schools, media campaigns etc. Also do things like give tax breaks for gym memberships etc.

[quote name='Temporaryscars']But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.[/QUOTE]

Which is true, but everyone could stand to drink less of it since it has no redeeming nutritional qualities whatsoever.

And not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic, but we all pay alcohol tax etc. Just a necessary evil to try to change habits (which really doesn't work) and help raise money to pay for the problems causes--enforcing DUI laws, funding emergency rooms etc. which also applies to obesity and the products that cause it.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.[/quote]

...don't you think the NYPD is going to be up in arms when they get taxed?
 
I'm personally hoping for a BLIND PERSONS tax. Your fidelco guide dog shits in the street? $50 bucks.
If you're too blind to pick it up, or get him to eat it, your'e out the fine.

Blind Folks could avoid paying the tax by agreeing to wear nothing but DareDevil costumes while they are out of their homes.


But you know, I also think a huge tax on "Sugary Sodas" is a brilliant idea too. And dont forget to tax those hookers.


See its times like this when politicians start to think "You know if we LEGALIZED weed.....do you know how much we'd make in taxes?"

Go rent SERPICO, Three Days Of The Condor, The Taking Of Phelam 123, or The French Connection to get an idea of what NY is going to look like in a few more years now that its broke :p
 
If someone says it's not good for you it will be taxed or banned in New York. Such is the price of living in a "cultured" society. Wasn't it New York that banned the cooking oil a few years back for being unhealthy?

California will follow suit soon; on the plus side once i'm done with college i'm out of this damn state.
 
My two cents is this is useless except to raise a lot of money really fast. As to dmaul1114, your insurance rates are high because insurance companies are businesses who like to make money, not because of fat people. Insurance companies do not offer prevention or services to help obese people lose weight they only pay for the effects of obesity like diabetes and heart disease, and for a country where most people do not know proper nutrition or exercise, that is a big deal.

In the end people should lose weight, but I don't want someone knocking on my door in 10 years telling me my hair is too long and know I have to pay taxes.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']My two cents is this is useless except to raise a lot of money really fast. As to dmaul1114, your insurance rates are high because insurance companies are businesses who like to make money, not because of fat people. Insurance companies do not offer prevention or services to help obese people lose weight they only pay for the effects of obesity like diabetes and heart disease, and for a country where most people do not know proper nutrition or exercise, that is a big deal.
[/QUOTE]

All true. But in the current system fat people raise premiums as they have poor health and thus submit more claims than healthy people. Same with people who smoke, or drink a ton or do other unhealthy stuff. They have more problems, see the doctor more and raise premiums for everyone.

But you're right we need much more education, prevention etc. when it comes to eating right and exercising.

But at the end of the day, this stuff isn't rocket science. Aside from the tiny majority of people with medical issues that lead to obesity, people are just fucking lazy and have no self control or discipline. So they don't exericise (everyone knows how) and don't cook healthy meals when they can much more quickly pick up dinner at Mc Donalds or throw a Hungryman meal in the microwave.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']


Which is true, but everyone could stand to drink less of it since it has no redeeming nutritional qualities whatsoever.

[/quote]

But isn't that for you to decide, and not the government?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']But isn't that for you to decide, and not the government?[/QUOTE]

You still have the choice, just have to pay a bit more for it with the tax. Just like people have to pay more for cigarettes, and I have to pay more for beer, because of taxes.

But honestly, I'm torn on such issues. I don't like government interference. But I don't like having a country full of lazy fat slobs in much greater numbers than the rest of the world either. I don't like looking at them. Being stuck beside them on airplanes, buses, trains etc. And I don't like having higher insurance premiums due to people with lots of health problems who don't take care of themselves.

But maybe rather than taxes a better system would just be to have people who poison themselves with poor eating, lack of excercise, smoking, alcoholism etc. not be eligible for insurance for health problems directly related to their poor health choices. Heart problems from being obese without medical cause of obesity? Tough shit, pay your own way or die. Lung cancer from smoking? Pay up or die. Liver problem from drinking? Too bad, so said.
 
Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.


Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.[/quote]

I'd support that as well. Non-diet soda is a huge contributor to obesity though. Liquid calories get stored as fat more readily than most food calories.

Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're right and that's the flaw with the system. If they really want to make a difference with this, they should use all the tax revenue on funding programs to educate people about eating right, help people pay gym memberships, put more phys ed and health programming in schools etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.


Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.[/quote]

Yeah, it's about making more money. But what would you rather they do? Tax a necessity? They always tax things like cigarettes and liquor higher. Why not add soda and fried foods to it.

They aren't proposing to tax diet soda BTW. Not sure if that was mentioned?
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, it's about making more money. But what would you rather they do? Tax a necessity? They always tax things like cigarettes and liquor higher. Why not add soda and fried foods to it.

They aren't proposing to tax diet soda BTW. Not sure if that was mentioned?[/QUOTE]

That is a good point. More tax revenue is needed, and I'd personally rather it be put on specific, not essential items rather than added into income taxes etc.

That way people can choose whether to pay it or not--and maybe there's some added benefit that at least some people will consume less unhealthy drinks and foods to avoid the tax.

Honestly, I've always thought having no income tax and just having a much higher sales tax, with higher taxes on luxury items, unhealthy items and less on essential food, clothing etc. would be a more fair system.

But I'm not sure it could ever be implemented as it would probably through the economy into an uproar. Despite taking home a lot more each pay check, I think a lot of people would balk at paying a lot more for items than they did before and hurt sales. But maybe it would balance out after awhile. But that's a topic for another thread....
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.[/quote]

Haha. They should have a scale ready when you buy your soda.

"Ok, approximately 5'5, 356 LBS. That Dr Pepper will be $7.86. Thanks!"
 
[quote name='100xp']if I get taxed on DLC from XBL I'm moving.[/quote]
You wont get taxed on DLC since you pay tax on the point cards.
 
This is a tax on sodie pop.

A tax on obesity would involve a politician measuring your fat-ass brats with a caliper once a year and levying a tax based on their body fat %.
 
Do you realize how in debt New York is? Would you rather they taxed necessities?


there is nothing wrong with taxing conveniences when the state is in this much trouble, get off your high horse on the other side of the country and realize this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top